Research

Below is a list of research papers, reports and other publications from Ekklesia dating back to 2004. Click on the title for more information on each publication, and a link through to the item itself where available. You might also like to sign up for our award winning weekly research bulletin which will ensure you are kept up-to-date with the very latest research from Ekklesia.

This report, written by disabled people themselves, and based on an analysis of some 500 responses to the UK government's consultation on its planned Disability Living Allowance (DLA) changes and cuts, illustrates that the coalition's proposed 'reforms' lack both support and credibility. 'Responsible Reform' shows that the government's DLA consultation breached the government's own code of practice and was "highly misleading". The material used here has been made public only as a result of disabled people requesting to see it under the Freedom of Information Act. Key findings include:
* 98 per cent of respondents object to the qualifying period for benefits being raised from three months to six months
* 99 per cent of respondents object to Disability Living Allowance no longer being used as a qualification for other benefits
* 92 per cent oppose removing the lowest rate of support for disabled people.
In all three cases, as well as many others, London's Conservative Mayor, Boris Johnson, has also objected to the proposed changes. The Welfare Reform Bill will be disastrous for sick and disabled people, says joint author Sue Marsh. It is not too late for a government rethink. Members of the House of Lords are being urged to back an adjournment debate calling for a pause of at least six months.

It is just over twelve months since the ‘Arab Spring’ took off in the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA), on 17 December 2010, in a spontaneous eruption of deep indignation but also of high expectation. In this personal paper, regional specialist Dr Harry Hagopian assesses the breadth and depth of the changes that have taken place. Today, many vested interests are still clutching to power under different guises. We are now dealing with uncertain outcomes that hold both promise and despair, he reports. We have entered new territory where the old imposed truths are no longer the only tradable commodity, where the European colonial borders for some of those artificial or adventive entities are crumbling under popular pressure and where the rules of the game have changed drastically. There is darkness in many of the events we have seen unfolding over the past 12 months, but also hope, he suggests.

This submission to the Scottish Government – regarding its proposals to legalise same-sex marriage and religious ceremonies in the registering of civil partnerships – seeks to balance two concerns: namely, freedom of conscience and practice for those who, whether on religious or non-religious grounds, endorse same-sex marriages and civil partnerships (and who may wish to participate in realising them), and non-compulsion towards those who oppose or do not recognise them (and do not wish to participate). In common with many other Christian organisations, adherents and theologians, Ekklesia has elsewhere advanced the view that there are good traditional, biblical and theological reasons for the churches to repent of their hostility to same-sex relationships and of their homophobia, as was the case in the past with scripturally-defended slavery. But this consultation is not finally about approving or disapproving same-sex unions. It is about whether and how the civic authorities should make legal provision for them in a context where the majority of the public appear to endorse them (according to the latest Scottish Social Attitudes Survey), but where there is still significant moral disagreement. The approach in this submission is to say a clear ‘yes’ to lawful same-sex marriage and mixed- or same-sex civil partnerships, without compulsion toward those who disagree with either or both. The context for this submission is Ekklesia’s 2006 paper, ‘What Future For Marriage?’ which set out a theological and practical case for distinguishing between legal and religious arrangements for recognising partnerships in a post-Christendom setting.

On 15 October 2011, the Occupy LSX movement – having been prevented from occupying a space directly in the City of London among the offices of financial institutions – established a protest outside St Paul’s Cathedral under the banner ‘We are the 99 per cent’. The protestors have sought to articulate a frustration that resonates widely among both those who choose to protest and those who do not, regarding the inequalities in UK society and globally, and the responsibility of financial institutions to serve society. These concerns go far further than individual or even corporate responsibility and greed, raising questions about the whole structure of the global economy, together with the practical ethical and theological responsibilities of churches and Christian communities. In this briefing paper, David McNair, who is Principle Economic Justice Adviser for the UK-based global development agency Christian Aid (www.christianaid.org.uk/), outlines his responses to the questions and opportunities posed by Occupy LSX, around the epithetic challenge ‘My word is my bond’.

The Occupy London group is asking for a real debate in politics and economics, rather than the closed-down debate in Westminster politics and also the City of London. They are right so to do, because no real responses are coming from either, other than the ya-boo of the Commons and the “banking is complicated” of the City. This short paper raises an issue which both groups must address, says the author, if they are to have any integrity. The countries where major financial crises in sovereign debt have occurred in the West are also the ones which are most unequal in terms of the distribution of income and wealth. Author Alan Starkey is an economist and sociologist with a strong theological pedigree.